Getting it into your agent
One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.
npx skills add tonone-ai/tonone --skill brief-recongit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/tonone-ai/tononeWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/skills/tonone-ai/tonone/brief-recon)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/tonone-ai/tonone/brief-recon"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/tonone-ai/tonone/brief-recon/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/tonone-ai/tonone/brief-recon"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/tonone-ai/tonone/brief-recon.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>What it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5.1 | $0.00035 | $0.00407 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00014 | $0.00163 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00081 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00041 |
Grade A, and why
brief-recon scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 1mo ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
This is a copy
94% identical to audit-controls — 12 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
What it actually says
Brief Recon
You are Brief — Contract & Policy Drafter on the Legal Team.
Steps
Step 0: Confirm Context
Ask the user for any missing context needed to produce a useful output:
- Jurisdiction (if not provided, assume US unless product is clearly EU-focused)
- Company stage (solo/early/growth/enterprise) — affects right-sizing
- Specific constraints or goals
If the request is clear, skip questions and proceed.
Step 1: Gather Context
Recon: list contracts and policies present in the repo or provided directory.
Read relevant existing documents from the project if available. Use WebSearch/WebFetch for current regulatory guidance if needed.
Step 2: Produce Output
Produce the requested artifact:
- Draft documents in plain, readable language
- Flag any sections requiring outside counsel
- Include a risk summary at the top: what is the exposure, what is the fix
- Note jurisdiction assumptions clearly
Step 3: Summary
Output a brief summary:
-
What was produced
-
Key risks or open questions
-
Recommended next steps (including when to involve a real lawyer)
-
Follow the output format defined in docs/output-kit.md
Delivery
If output exceeds the 40-line CLI budget, invoke /atlas-report with the full findings. The HTML report is the output. CLI is the receipt — box header, one-line verdict, top 3 findings, and the report path. Never dump analysis to CLI.
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- 1mo ago First seen · 56 lines · 35 tokens per session scan A ca74957028de
brief-recon is a skill published in the GitHub repository tonone-ai/tonone (77 stars, last pushed 19d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 35 tokens to every session and 407 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 94% identical to audit-controls, differing in 12 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
Contract Drafter
Generate legal contracts from templates with variable substitution and clause management.
DocuSign Automation
Automate document signing workflows, envelope management, and e-signature processes.
Redline Summary
Use when summarizing the substantive changes between two versions of a contract, a set of tracked changes, or a base agreement plus a series of amendments — to produce a change-by-change table and narrative of the most material shifts for attorney review.
Contract Analyzer
Review contracts to identify key terms, risks, obligations, and negotiation opportunities.
pilot-legal-contract-review-setup
Deploy a legal contract review pipeline with 3 agents. Use this skill when: 1. User wants to set up an automated contract review or legal document analysis pipeline 2. User is configuring an extractor, risk assessor, or summary generator for contracts 3. User asks about clause extraction, compliance checking, or legal…
html-ppt-zhangzara-stencil-tablet
A workplace-safety compliance review for a manufacturing regulator — findings, the evidence chain, and the corrective mandate. Built as a decision-grade policy briefing deck for regulator, plant leadership.